 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton. CHAPTER XIV. IN TOPSY TERVY LAND In an idle metaphor, I took the tumbling of trees and the secret energy of the wind as typical of the visible world moving under the violence of the invisible. I took this metaphor merely because I happened to be writing the article in a wood. Nevertheless, now that I return to Fleet Street, which seems to me I confess much better and more poetical than all the wild woods in the world, I am strangely haunted by this accidental comparison. The people's figures seem a forest and their soul a wind. All the human personalities, which speak or signal to me, seem to have this fantastic character of the fringe of the forest against the sky. The man that talks to me, what is he but an articulate tree? That driver of a van, who waves his hands wildly at me to tell me to get out of the way? What is he but a bunch of branches stirred and swayed by a spiritual wind? A sylvan object that I can continue to contemplate with calm? That policeman who lifts his hand to warn three omnibuses of the peril that they run in encountering my person? What is he but a shrub taken for a moment with that blast of human law which is a thing stronger than anarchy? Gradually this impression of the woods wears off, but this black and white contrast between the visible and invisible, this deep sense that the one essential belief in the invisible as against the visible is suddenly and sensationally brought back to my mind. Exactly at the moment when Fleet Street has grown most familiar, that is most bewildering and bright, my eye catches a poster of vivid violet on which I see written in large black letters these remarkable words. Should shop assistants marry? When I saw those words everything might just as well have turned upside down. The men in Fleet Street might have been walking about on their hands. The cross of St. Paul's might have been hanging in the air upside down. For I realized that I have really come into a topsy-turvy country. I have come into the country where men do definitely believe that the waving of the trees makes the wind. That is to say they believe that the material circumstances, however black and twisted, are more important than the spiritual realities, however powerful and pure. Should shop assistants marry? I am puzzled to think what some periods in schools of human history would have made of such a question. The aesthetics of the East or some periods of the early church would have thought that the question meant, are not shop assistants too saintly, too much of another world, even to feel the emotions of the sexes? But I suppose that is not what the purple poster means. In some pagan cities it might have meant shell slaves so vile as shop assistants even be allowed to propagate their abject race. But I suppose that is not what the purple poster meant. We must face, I fear, the full insanity of what it does mean. It does really mean that a section of the human race is asking whether the primary relations of the two human sexes are particularly good for modern shops. The human race is asking whether Adam and Eve are entirely suitable for Marshall and Snellgrove. If this is not topsy-turvy, I cannot imagine what would be. We ask whether the universal institution will improve our, please God, temporary institutions. Yet I have known many such questions. For instance I have known a man asked seriously, does democracy help the empire, which is like saying, is art favourable to frescoes? I say that there are many such questions asked, but if the world ever runs short of them I can suggest a large number of questions of precisely the same kind based on precisely the same principle. Do feet improve boots? Is bread better when eaten? Should hats have heads in them? Do people spoil a town? Do walls ruin wallpapers? Should neckties ink close necks? Do hands hurt walking sticks? Does burning destroy a firewood? Is cleanliness good for soap? Can cricket really improve cricket bats? Shall we take brides with our wedding rings? And a hundred others. Not one of these questions differs at all in intellectual purport or in intellectual value from the question which I have quoted from the purple poster, or from any of the typical questions asked by half of the earnest economist of our times. All the questions they ask are of this character. They are all tinged with the same initial absurdity. They do not ask if the means is suited to the end. They all ask with profound and penetrating skepticism if the end is suited to the means. They do not ask whether the tail suits the dog. They all ask whether a dog is, by the highest artistic cannons, the most ornamental appendage that can be put at the end of a tail. In short, instead of asking whether our modern arrangements, our streets, trades, bargains, laws, and concrete institutions are suited to the primal and permanent idea of a healthy human life. They never admit that healthy human life entered a discussion at all, except suddenly and accidentally at odd moments and then. They only ask whether that healthy human life is suited to our streets and trades. Perfection may be attainable or unattainable as an end. It may or may not be possible to talk of imperfection as a means to perfection. But surely it passes toleration to talk of perfection as a means to imperfection. The New Jerusalem may be a reality. It may be a dream. But surely it is too outrageous to say that the New Jerusalem is a reality on the road to Birmingham. This is the most enormous and at the same time the most secret of the modern tyrannies of materialism. In theory the thing ought to be simple enough. A really human human being would always put the spiritual things first. A walking and speaking statue of God finds himself at one particular moment employed as a shop assistant. He has in himself a power of terrible love, a promise of paternity, a thirst for some loyalty that shall unify life, and in the ordinary course of things he asks himself, How far do the existing conditions of those assisting in shops fit in with my evident and epic destiny in the matter of love and marriage? But here, as I have said, comes in the quiet and crushing power of modern materialism. It prevents him rising in rebellion, as he would otherwise do, by perpetually talking about environment and visible things, by perpetually talking about economics and physical necessity, painting and keeping repainted a perpetual picture of iron machinery and merciless engines, of rails of steel, and of towers of stone. Modern materialism at last produces this tremendous impression in which the truth is stated upside down. At last the result is achieved. The man does not say, as he ought to have said, should married men endure being modern shop assistants. The man says, should shop assistants marry. Triumph has completed the immense illusion of materialism. The slave does not say, are these chains worthy of me? The slave says scientifically and contentedly, am I even worthy of these chains? CHAPTER 15 What I found in my pocket. Once when I was a very young man, I met one of those men who had made the empire what it is, a man in an estra can coat with an estra can mustache, a tight black curly mustache. Whether he put on the mustache with a coat, or whether his Napoleonic will enabled him not only to grow a mustache in the usual place, but also to grow little mustaches all over his clothes, I do not know. I only remember that he said to me the following words. A man can't get on nowadays by hanging about with his hands in his pockets. I made reply with a quite obvious flippancy that perhaps a man got on by having his hands in other people's pockets, whereupon he began to argue about moral evolution. So I suppose what I said had some truth in it. But the incident now comes back to me and connects itself to another incident, if you can call it an incident, which happened to me only the other day. I have only once in my life picked a pocket, and then perhaps through some absent-mindedness I picked my own. My acts can really, with some reason, be so described. For in taking things out of my own coat pocket, I had at least one of the more tense and quivering emotions of the thief. I had a complete ignorance and a profound curiosity as to what I should find there. Perhaps it would be the exaggeration of eulogy to call me a tidy person, but I can always pretty satisfactorily account for all my possessions. I can always tell where they are and what I have done with them, so long as I can keep them out of my pockets. If once anything slips into those unknown abysses, I wave it a sad, virgillian farewell. I suppose that the things that I have dropped into my pockets are still there. The same presumption applies to the things that I have dropped into the sea. But I regard the riches stored in both these bottomless chasms with the same reverent ignorance. They tell us that on the last day the sea will give up its dead, and I suppose that on the same occasion long strings of extraordinary things will come running out of my pockets. But I have quite forgotten what any of them are, and there is really nothing, excepting the money, that I shall be at all surprised at finding among them. Such at least has hitherto been my state of innocence. I here only wish briefly to recall the special extraordinary and hitherto unprecedented circumstances, which led me in cold blood and being of sound mind, to turn out my pockets. I was locked up in a third-class carriage for a rather long journey. The time was towards evening, but it might have been anything for everything resembling earth or sky or light or shade was painted out, as with a great wet brush by an unshifting sheet of quite colorless rain. I had no books or newspapers. I had not even a pencil and a scrap of paper with which to write a religious epic. There were no advertisements on the walls of the carriage. Otherwise I could have plunged into the study. For any collection of printed words is quite enough to suggest infinite complexities of mental ingenuity. When I find myself opposite the words Sunlight Soap, I can exhaust all the aspects of Sunworship, Apollo and Summer Poetry before I go on to the less congenial subject of soap. But there was no printed word or picture anywhere. There was nothing but blank wood inside the carriage and blank wet without. Now I deny most energetically that anything is or can be uninteresting. So I stared at the joints of the walls and seats and began thinking hard on the fascinating subject of wood. Just as I had begun to realize why, perhaps it was, that Christ was a carpenter rather than a bricklayer or a baker or anything else, I suddenly started upright and remembered my pockets. I was carrying about with me an unknown treasury. I had a British museum and a South Kensington collection of unknown curios hung all over me in different places. I began to take things out. The first thing I came upon consisted of piles and heaps of Battersea tram tickets. There were enough to equip a paper chase. They shook down in showers like confetti. Primarily, of course, they touched my patriotic emotions and brought tears to my eyes. Also they provided me with the printed matter I required, for I found on the back of them some short but striking little scientific essays about some kind of pill. Comparatively speaking, in my then destitution, those tickets might be regarded as a small but well-chosen scientific library. Should my railway journey continue, which seemed likely at the time, for a few months longer, I could imagine myself throwing myself into the controversial aspects of the pill, composing replies and rejoinders, pro and con, upon the data furnished to me. But after all it was the symbolic quality of the tickets that moved me most. Or as certainly as the cross of St. George means English patriotism, those scraps of paper meant all that municipal patriotism which is now, perhaps, the great hope of England. The next thing I took out was a pocketknife. A pocketknife, I need hardly say, would require a thick book full of moral meditations all to itself. A knife typifies one of the most primary of those practical origins, which as upon low, thick pillows all our human civilization reposes. Metals, the mystery of the thing called iron and the thing called steel, led me off half dazed into a kind of dream. I saw into the entrails of dim, damp wood where the first man, among all the common stones, found the strange stone. I saw a vague and violent battle in which stone axes broke and stone knives were splintered against something shining and new in the hand of one desperate man. I heard all the hammers on all the anvils of the earth. I saw all the swords of feudal and all the wheels of industrial war. For the knife is only a short sword, and the pocketknife is a secret sword. I opened it and looked at that brilliant and terrible tongue which we call a blade, and I thought that perhaps it was the symbol of the oldest of the needs of man. The next moment I knew that I was wrong, for the thing that came next out of my pocket, was a box of matches. Then I saw fire, which is stronger even than steel, the old fierce female thing, the thing we all love but dare not touch. The next thing I found was a piece of chalk, and I saw in it all the art and all the frescoes of the world. The next was a coin of a very modest value, and I saw in it not only the image and superscription of our own Caesar, but all government and order since the world began. But I have not space to say what were the items in the long and splendid procession of poetical symbols that came pouring out. I cannot tell you all the things that were in my pocket. I can tell you one thing, however, that I could not find in my pocket. I allude to my railway ticket. CHAPTER 16 THE DRAGON'S GRANDMOTHER I met a man the other day who did not believe in fairy tales. I do not mean that he did not believe in the incidents narrated in them, that he did not believe that a pumpkin could turn into a coach. He did indeed entertain this curious disbelief. And like all the other people I have ever met who entertained it, he was wholly unable to give me an intelligent reason for it. He tried the laws of nature, but he soon dropped that. Then he said that pumpkins were unalterable in ordinary experience, and that we all reckoned on their infinitely protracted pumpkinity. But I pointed out to him that this was not an attitude we adopted, especially towards impossible marvels, but simply the attitude we adopt toward all unusual occurrences. If we were certain of miracles, we should not count on them. Things that happened very seldom, we all leave out of our calculations. Whether they are miraculous or not. I do not expect a glass of water to be turned into wine. But neither do I expect a glass of water to be poisoned with prosigacin. I do not in ordinary business relations act on the assumption that the editor is a fairy. But neither do I act on the assumption that he is a Russian spy or the lost heir of the Holy Roman Empire. What we assume in action is not that the natural order is unalterable, but simply that it is much safer to bet on uncommon incidents than on common ones. This does not touch the credibility of any attested tale about a Russian spy or a pumpkin turned into a coach. If I had seen a pumpkin turned into a pan-herd motor-car with my own eyes, that would not make me any more inclined to assume that the same thing would happen again. I should not invest largely in pumpkins with an eye to the motor-trade. Cinderella got a bald dress from the fairy, but I do not suppose that she looked after her own clothes any the less after it. But the view that fairy tales cannot really have happened, though crazy, is common. The man I speak of disbelieved in fairy tales in an even more amazing and perverted sense. He actually thought that fairy tales ought not to be told to children. That is, like a belief in slavery or annexation, one of those intellectual errors which lie very near to ordinary mortal sins. There are some refusals which, though they may be done, what is called conscientiously, yet carry so much of their whole horror in the very act of them, that a man must in doing them not only harden, but slightly corrupt his heart. One of them was the refusal of milk to young mothers when their husbands were in the field against us. Another is the refusal of fairy tales to children. The man had come to see me in connection with some silly society, of which I am an enthusiastic member. He was a fresh-colored, short-sighted young man, like a stray cura who was too helpless even to find his way to Church of England. He had a curious green necktie and a very long neck. I am always meeting idealists with very long necks. Perhaps it is their eternal aspiration slowly lifts their heads, nearer and nearer to the stars. Or perhaps it is something to do with the fact that so many of them are vegetarians. Perhaps they are slowly evolving the neck of the giraffe so that they can eat all the tops of the trees in Kensington Gardens. These things are in every sense above me. Such anyhow was the young man who did not believe in fairy tales and by a curious coincidence he entered the room when I had just finished looking through a pile of contemporary fiction and had begun to read Grimm's fairy tales as a natural consequence. The modern novels did be for me, however, in a stack, and you can imagine their titles for yourself. There was Suburban Sue, A Tale of Psychology, and also Psychological Sue, A Tale of Suburia. There was Trixie, A Temperament, and Man Hate, A Monochrome, and all those nice things. I read them with real interest, but curiously enough I grew tired of them at last. And when I saw Grimm's fairy tales lying incidentally on the table, I gave a cry of indecent joy. Here at least, here at last, one could find a little common sense. I opened the book, and my eyes fell on the splendid and satisfying words. The Dragon's Grandmother That at least was reasonable. That at least was true. The Dragon's Grandmother. While I was rolling this first touch of ordinary human reality upon my tongue, I looked up suddenly and saw this monster with a green tie standing in the doorway. I listened to what he said about the society politely enough, I hope, but when he incidentally mentioned that he did not believe in fairy tales, I broke out beyond control. Man, I said, Who are you that you should not believe in fairy tales? It is much easier to believe in Bluebeard than to believe in you. A Bluebeard is a misfortune, but there are green ties which are sins. It is far easier to believe in a million fairy tales than to believe in one man who does not like fairy tales. I would rather kiss Grimm, instead of a Bible, and swear to all his stories as if they were the 39 articles, then say seriously and out of my heart that there can be such a man as you, that you are not some temptation of the devil or some delusion from the void. Look at these plain, homely, practical words. The Dragon's Grandmother. That is all right, that is rational almost to the verge of rationalism. If there was a Dragon, he had a Grandmother. But you, you had no Grandmother. If you had known one, she would have taught you to love fairy tales. You had no father, you had no mother. No natural causes can explain you. You cannot be. I believe many things which I have not seen. But of such things as you it may be said. Blessed is he that has seen and yet has disbelieved. It seemed to me that he did not follow me with sufficient delicacy, so I moderated my tone. Can you not see I said that fairy tales in their essence are quite solid and straightforward. But that this everlasting fiction about modern life is in its nature essentially incredible. Folklore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the fairy tale is what will a healthy man do with the fantastic world? The problem of the modern novel is what will a madman do with the dull world? In the fairy tales the cosmos goes mad, but the hero does not go mad. In the modern novels the hero is mad before the book begins and suffers from the harsh steadiness and cruel sanity of the cosmos. In the excellent tale of the dragon's grandmother, in all the other tales of grim, it is assumed that the young man setting out on his travels will have all substantial truths in him. And that he will be brave, full of faith, reasonable, and that he will respect his parents, keep his word, rescue one kind of people, defy another kind. Then, having assumed this center of sanity, the writer entertains himself by fancying what would happen if the whole world went mad all around it, if the sun turned green and the moon blue, if horses had six legs and giants had two heads. But your modern literature takes insanity as its center. Therefore it loses the interest even of the insanity. A lunatic is not startling to himself because he is quite serious. That is what makes him a lunatic. A man who thinks he is a piece of glass is to himself as dull as a piece of glass. A man who thinks he is a chicken is to himself as common as a chicken. It is only sanity that can see even a wild poetry in insanity. Therefore these wise old tales made the hero ordinary and the tale extraordinary. But you have made the hero extraordinary and the tale ordinary. So ordinary. Oh, so very ordinary. I saw him still gazing at me fixedly. Some nerve snapped in me under the hypnotic stare. I left to my feet and cried in the name of God and democracy and the dragon's grandmother. In the name of all good things I charge you to avant and haunt this house no more. Whether or no it was the result of the exorcism. There is no doubt that he definitely went away. End of Chapter 16 This is a LibraVox recording. All LibraVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibraVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton. Chapter 17 The Red Angel I find that there really are human beings who think fairy tales bad for children. I do not speak of the man in the green tie. For him I can never count truly human. She has written me an earnest letter saying that fairy tales ought not to be taught to children even if they are true. She says that it is cruel to tell children fairy tales because it frightens them. You might just as well say that it is cruel to give girls sentimental novels because it makes them cry. All this kind of talk is based on a complete forgetting of what a child is like a firm foundation of so many educational schemes. If you keep bogies and goblins away from children they would make them up for themselves. One small child in the dark can invent more hells than the Swedenborg. One small child can imagine monsters too big and black to get into any picture and give them names too unearthly and cacophonous to have occurred in the cries of any lunatic. The child, to begin with, commonly likes horrors and he continues to indulge in them even when he does not like them. There is just as much difficulty in saying exactly where pure pain begins in this case as there is in ours when we walk of our own free will into the torture chamber of a great tragedy. The fear does not come from fairy tales. The fear comes from the universe of the soul. The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable. They are alarmed at this world because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that agnostics worship it because it is a fact. Fairy tales then are not responsible for producing in children fear or any of the shapes of the fear. Fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly. That is in the child already because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a Saint George to kill the dragon. Exactly what the fairy tale does is this. It accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that this limitless terror had a limit. That these shapeless enemies have enemies in the nights of God. That there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness and stronger than the strong fear. When I was a child I have stared at the darkness until the whole black book of it turned into one black giant taller than heaven. If there was one star in the sky it only made him a cyclops. But fairy tales restored my mental health. For next day I read an authentic account of how a black giant with one eye of quite equal dimensions had been baffled by a little boy like myself of similar inexperience and even lower social status by means of a sword, some bad riddles, and brave heart. Sometimes the sea at night seemed as dreadful as any dragon. But then I was acquainted with many youngest sons and little sailors to whom a dragon or two was as simple as the sea. Take the most horrible of Grimm's tales in incident and imagery. The excellent tale of the boy who could not shudder. And you will see what I mean. There are some living shocks in that tale. I remember especially a man's legs which fell down the chimney by themselves and walked about the room till they were rejoined by the severed head and body which fell down the chimney after them. That is very good. But the point of the story and the point of the reader's feelings is not that these things are frightening, but the far more striking fact that the hero was not frightened at them. The most fearful of all these fearful wonders was his own absence of fear. He slapped the bogies on the back and asked the devils to drink wine with him. Many a time in my youth, when stifled with some modern morbidity, I have prayed for a double portion of this spirit. If you have not read the end of the story, go and read it. It is the wisest thing in the world. The hero was at last taught to shudder by taking a wife who threw a pail of cold water over him. In that one sentence there is more of the real meaning of marriage than in all the books about sex that cover Europe and America. In the four corners of a child's bed stay at Perseus and Rowland, Sigurd and St. George. If you withdraw the guard of heroes, you are not making him rational. You are only leaving him to fight the devils alone. For the devils alas we have always believed in. The hopeful element in the universe has in modern times continually been denied and reasserted, but the hopeless element has never for a moment been denied. As I told HNB, whom I paused to wish a happy Christmas in its most superstitious sense, the one thing modern people really do believe in is damnation. The greatest of purely modern poets summed up the really modern attitude in that fine agnostic line, there may be heaven, there must be hell. The gloomy view of the universe has been a continuous tradition, and the new types of spiritual investigation or conjecture all begin by being gloomy. A little while ago men believed in no spirits. Now they are beginning rather slowly to believe in rather slow spirits. Some people objected to spiritualism, table wrappings and such things because they were undignified, because the ghosts cracked jokes or waltzed with dinner tables. I do not share this objection in the least. I wish the spirits were more farcical than they are. That they should make more jokes and better ones would be my suggestion. For almost all of the spiritualism of our time, insofar as it is new, is solemn and sad. Some pagan gods were lawless, and some Christian saints were a little too serious. But the spirits of modern spiritualism are both lawless and serious, a disgusting combination. The specially contemporary spirits are not only devils, they are blue devils. This is first and last the real value of Christmas, and so far as the mythology remains in it at all, it is a kind of happy mythology. Personally, of course, I believe in Santa Claus, but it is the season of forgiveness, and I will forgive others for not doing so. But if there is anyone who does not comprehend the defect in our world which I am civilizing, I should recommend him, for instance, to read a story by Mr. Henry James called The Turn of the Screw. It is one of the most powerful things ever written, and it is one of the things about which I doubt most, whether it ought ever to have been written at all. It describes two innocent children gradually growing at once omniscient and half-witted under the influence of the foul ghosts of a groom and a governess. As I say, I doubt whether Mr. Henry James ought to have published it. No, it is not indecent. Do not buy it. It is a spiritual matter. But I think the question so doubtful, that I will give that truly great man a chance. I will approve the thing as well as admire it, if he will write another tale just as powerful about two children and Santa Claus. If he will not or cannot, then the conclusion is clear. We can deal strongly with gloomy mystery, but not with happy mystery. We are not rationalists, but diabolists. I thought vaguely of all this, staring at a great red fire that stands up in the room like a great red angel. But perhaps you never heard of a red angel. But you have heard of a blue devil. That is exactly what I mean. CHAPTER 18 THE TOWER I have been standing where everybody has stood, opposite the great belfry tower of Bruges, and thinking, as everyone has thought, though not perhaps said, that it is built in defiance of all decencies of architecture. It is made in deliberate disproportion to achieve the one startling effect of height. It is a church on stilts. But this sort of sublime deformity is characteristic of the whole fancy and energy of these Flemish cities. The Flanders has the flattest and most prosaic landscapes, but the most violent and extravagant of buildings. Here nature is tame. It is civilization that is untameable. Here the fields are as flat as a paved square, but on the other hand the streets and roofs are as uproarious as a forest in a great wind. The waters of wood and meadow slide as smoothly and meekly as if they were in the London water pipes. But the perished pump is carved with all the creatures out of the wilderness. Part of this is true, of course, of all art. We talk of wild animals, but the wildest animal is man. There are sounds and music that are more ancient and awful than the cry of the strangest beast at night. And so also there are buildings that are shapeless in their strength, seeming to lift themselves slowly like monsters from the primal mire. And there are spires that seem to fly up suddenly like a startled bird. This savagery, even in stone, is the expression of the special spirit in humanity. All the beasts of the field are respectable. It is only man who has broken loose. All animals are domestic animals. Only man is ever undomestic. All animals are tame animals. It is only we who are wild. And doubtless also while this queer energy is common to all human art, it is also generally characteristic of Christian art among the arts of the world. This is what people really mean when they say that Christianity is barbaric and arose in ignorance. As a matter of historic fact, it didn't. It arose in the most equibly civilized period the world has ever seen. But it is true that there is something in it that breaks the outline of perfect and conventional beauty. Something that dots with anger the blind eyes of the Apollo and lashes to a cavalry charge the horses of the Elgin marbles. Christianity is savage in the sense that it is primeval. There is in it a touch of the Negro hymn. I remember a debate in which I had praised militant music and ritual, and someone asked me if I could imagine Christ walking down the street before a brass band. I said I could imagine it with the greatest ease, for Christ definitely approved a natural noisiness at a great moment. When the street children shouted too loud, certain priggish disciples did begin to rebuke them, in the name of good taste. He said, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out. With these words he called up all the wealth of artistic creation that has been founded on this creed. With those words he founded Gothic architecture. For in a town like this, which seems to have grown Gothic as a wood grows leaves, anywhere and anyhow, any odd brick or molding may be carved off into a shouting face. The front of vast buildings is thronged with open mouths, angels praising God or devils defying him. Rock itself is wracked and twisted until it seems to scream. The miracle is accomplished, the very stones cry out. But though this furious fancy is certainly a specialty of men among creatures, and of Christian art among arts, it is still most notable in the art of Flanders. All Gothic buildings are full of extravagant things in detail, but this is an extravagant thing in design. All Christian temples we're talking about have gargoyles, but Bruges Belfry is a gargoyle. It is an unnaturally long-necked animal like a giraffe. The same impression of exaggeration is forced on the mind at every corner of a Flemish town, and if anyone asks, why did the people of these flat countries instinctively raise these riotous and towering monuments, the only answer one can give is, because they were the people of these flat countries. If anyone asks why the men of Bruges sacrificed architecture and everything to the sense of dizzy and divine heights, we can only answer, because nature gave them no encouragement to do so. As I stare at the Belfry, I think with a sort of smile of some of my friends in London who are quite sure of how children will turn out if you give them what they call the right environment. It is a troublesome thing, environment, for it sometimes works positively and sometimes negatively and more often between the two. A beautiful environment may make a child love beauty, it may make him bored with beauty. Most likely the two effects will mix and neutralize each other. Most likely, that is, the environment will make hardly any difference at all. In the scientific style of history, which was recently fashionable and is still conventional, we always had a list of countries that had owed their characteristics to their physical conditions. The Spaniards, it was said, are passionate because their country is hot, Scandinavians adventurous because their country is cold, Englishmen naval because they are islanders, Swissers free because they are mountaineers. It is all very nice in its way. Only unfortunately I am quite certain that I could make up quite as long a list exactly contrary in its argument point blank against the influence of their geographical environment. Thus Spaniards have discovered more continents than Scandinavians because their hot climate discouraged them from exertion. Thus Dutchmen have fought for their freedom quite as bravely as Swissers because the Dutch have no mountains. Thus Pagan, Greece and Rome and many Mediterranean peoples have specially hated the sea because they had the nicest sea to deal with, the easiest sea to manage. I could extend the list forever. But however long it was, two examples would certainly stand up in it as preeminent and unquestionable. The first is that the Swiss who live under the staggering precipices and spires of eternal snow have produced no art or literature at all and are by far the most mundane, sensible and business-like people in Europe. The other is that the people of Belgium, who live in a country like a carpet, have by an inner energy desired to exalt their towers till they struck the stars. As it is therefore quite doubtful whether a person will go specially with his environment or especially against his environment, I cannot comfort myself with the thought that the modern discussions about environment are of much practical value. But I think I will not write any more about these modern theories but go on looking at the Belfry of Bruges. I would give them the greater attention if I were not pretty well convinced that the theories will have disappeared a long time before the Belfry. CHAPTER XIX How I Met the President Several years ago, when there was a small war going on in South Africa and a great fuss going on in England, when it was by no means so popular and convenient to be a pro-boar as it is now, I remember making a bright suggestion to my pro-boar friends and allies, which was not, I regret to say, received with the seriousness that it deserved. I suggested that a band of devoted and noble youths, including ourselves, should express our sense of the pathos of the Presidents and the Republic's fate by growing Kruger Beards under our chins. I imagined how abruptly this decoration would alter the appearance of Mr. John Morley, how startling it would be as it emerged from under the chin of Mr. Lloyd George. But the younger men, my own friends, on whom I more particularly urged it, men whose names are in many cases familiar to the readers of this paper, Mr. Masterman's, for instance, and Mr. Conrad Noel, day I felt, being young and beautiful, would do even more justice to the Kruger Beard, and when walking down the street with it would not fail to attract attention. The beard would have been a kind of counter-blast to the road's hat. An appropriate counter-blast for the Rhodesian power in Africa is only an external thing placed upon the top like a hat. The Dutch power and tradition is a thing rooted in growing like a beard. We have shaved it, and it is growing again. The Kruger Beard would represent time and the natural processes. You cannot grow a beard in a moment of passion. After making this proposal to my friends, I hurriedly left town. I went down to a West Country place where there was, shortly afterwards, an election at which I enjoyed myself very much, canvassing for the liberal candidate. The extraordinary thing was that he got in. I sometimes lie awake at night and meditate upon that mystery, but it must not detain us now. The rather singular incident which happened to me then, and which some recent events have recalled to me, happened while the canvassing was still going on. It was a burning blue day, and the warm sunshine settling everywhere on the high hedges and the low hills brought into a kind of heavy bloom that humane quality of the landscape, which, as far as I know, only exists in England. That sense, as if the bushes and the roads were human, and had kindness like men, as if the trees were a good giant with one wooden leg, as if the very line of palings were a row of good tempered gnomes. On one side of the white sprawling road, a low hill or down, showed but a little higher than the hedge. On the other, the land tumbled down into a valley that opened towards the mendip hills. The road was very erratic for every true English road exists in order to lead one a dance. And what could be more beautiful and beneficent than a dance? At an abrupt turn of it, I came upon a low white building with dark doors and dark shuttered windows, evidently not inhabited and scarcely in the ordinary sense inhabitable. A thing more like a tool-house than a house of any other kind. Made idle by the heat I paused and taking a piece of red chalk out of my pocket, began drawing aimlessly on the back door, drawing goblins and Mr. Chamberlain, and finally the ideal nationalist with the Kruger beard. The materials did not permit of any delicate rendering of his noble and national expansion of countenance, stoical and yet hopeful, full of cheers for man and yet of an element of humor. But the hat was finally handled, just as I was adding the finishing touches to the Kruger fantasy. I was frozen to the spot with terror. The black door, which I thought no more of than the lid of an empty box, began slowly to open, impaled from within by a human hand. And President Kruger himself came out into the sunlight. He was a shade milder of eye than he was in his portraits, and he did not wear that ceremonial scarf, usually in such pictures as long across his ponderous form. But there was the hat, which filled the empire with so much alarm. There were the clumsy dark clothes. There was the heavy, powerful face. There, above all, was the Kruger beard, which I had sought to evoke, if I may use the verb, from under the features of Mr. Masterman. Whether he had the umbrella or not, I was too much emotionally shaken to observe. He had not the stone lions with him, or Mrs. Kruger, and what he was doing in that dark shed I cannot imagine. But I suppose he was a pressing and outlander. I was surprised, I must confess, to meet President Kruger in Somersetshire during the war. I had no idea that he was in the neighborhood. But he had more arresting surprise awaited me. Mr. Kruger regarded me for some moments with a dubious gray eye, and then addressed me with a strong Somersetshire accent. A curious cold shock went through me, to hear that inappropriate voice coming out of that familiar form. It was as if you met a Chinaman with pigtail and yellow jacket, and he began to talk broad scotch. But the next moment, of course, I understood the situation. We had much underrated the boars, even supposing that the boar education was incomplete. In pursuing of his ruthless plot against our island home, this terrible President had learned not only English, but all the dialects had a moment's notice, to win over a Lancashire merchant, or seduce a Northumberland fusillier. No doubt if I asked him this stout old gentleman could grind out Sussex, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and so on, like the toons in a barrel organ. I could not wonder if our plain, true-hearted German millionaires fell before a cunning so penetrated with culture as this. And now I came to a third and greatest surprise of all, that this strange old man gave me. When he asked me dryly enough, but not without a certain steady civility that belongs to old-fashioned country people, what I wanted and what I was doing, I told him the facts of the case, explaining my political mission and the almost angelic qualities of the liberal candidate. Whereupon this old man became suddenly transfigured in the sunlight into a devil of wrath, it was some time before I could understand a word he said, but the one word that kept on recurring was the word Kruger, and it was invariably accompanied with a volley of violent terms. Was I for old Kruger, was I? Did I come to him and want him to help old Kruger? I ought to be ashamed I was, and here he became once more obscure. The one thing that he made quite clear was that he wouldn't do anything for Kruger. But you are Kruger, burst from my lips and a natural explosion of reasonableness. You are Kruger, aren't you? After this innocent fumble of mine, I thought at first there would be a fight, and I remembered with regret that the President in early life had a hobby of killing lions. But I really began to think that I had been mistaken, and that it was not the President after all. There was a confounding sincerity in the anger with which he declared that he was a farmer-bowls, and everybody noted. I appeased him eventually, and parted from him at the door of his farmhouse, where he left me with a few tags of religion which again raised my suspicions of his identity. In the coffee-room to which I returned, there was an illustrated paper with a picture of President Kruger, and he and farmer-bowls were as alike as two peas. There was a picture also of a group of outlander leaders, and the faces of them, leering and triumphant, were perhaps unduly darkened by the photograph. But they seemed to me like the faces of a distant and hostile people. I saw the old man, once again, on the fierce night of the pole, when he drove down to our liberal lines in a little cart of blaze with his blue Tory ribbons, for he was a man who would carry his colors everywhere. It was evening, and the warm western light was on the gray hair and heavy massive features of that good old man. I knew as one knows a fact of sense that if Spanish and German stockbrokers had flooded his farm or country, he would have fought them forever, not fiercely like an Irishman, but with the ponderous courage and ponderous cunning of the boar. I knew that without seeing it, as certainly as I knew that without seeing it, that when he went into the polling-room he would put his cross against the conservative name. Then he came out again, having given his vote and looking more like Kruger than ever, and at the same hour on the same night, thousands upon thousands of English Krugers gave the same vote. And thus Kruger was pulled down and the dark-faced men in the photograph reigned in his stead. End of Chapter 19 This is a LibraVox recording. All LibraVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibraVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton Chapter 20 The Giant I sometimes fancy that every great city must have been built by night. At least it is only at night that every part of a great city is great. All architecture is great architecture after sunset. Perhaps architecture is really an external honor, like the art of fireworks. At least I think many people of those nobler trades that work by night—journalists, policemen, burglars, coffee stall-keepers, and such mistaken enthusiasts as refuse to go home until morning— must often have stood admiring some black bulk of building with a crown of battlements or crest of spires and then burst into tears at daybreak to discover that it was only a haberdasher shop with huge gold letters across the face of it. I had a sensation of this sort the other day, as I happened to be wandering in the temple gardens toward the end of twilight. I sat down on a bench with my back to the river, happening to chew such a place that a huge angle in façade of building, jutting out from the strand, sat above me like an incubus. I dare say that if I took the same seat by daylight I should find the impression entirely false. In sunlight the thing might seem almost distant, but in that half-darkness it seemed as if the walls were almost falling upon me. Never before have I had so strongly the sense which makes people pessimists in politics the sense of the hopeless height of the high places of the earth. That pile of wealth and power, whatever was its name, went up above and beyond me like a cliff that no living thing could climb. I had an irrational sense that this thing had to be fought, that I had to fight it, and that I could offer nothing to the occasion, but an indolent journalist with a walking stick. Almost as I had the thought, two windows were lit in that black, blind face. It was as if two eyes that opened in the huge face of a sleeping giant. The eyes were too close together and gave it the suggestion of a bestial sneer. And either by accident of this light or some other, I could now read the big letters which spaced themselves across the front. It was the Babylon Hotel. It was the perfect symbol of everything that I should like to pull down with my hands if I could. Reared by a detected robber, it is framed to be the fashionable and luxurious home of undetected robbers. In the house of man are many mansions, but there is a class of men who feel normal nowhere, except in the Babylon Hotel or in Dartmoor Goal. That big black face which was staring at me with its flaming eyes too close together, that was indeed the giant of all epic and fairy tales. But alas, I was not the giant killer. The hour had come, but not the man. I sat down on the seat again. I had had one wild impulse to climb up the front of the hotel and fall in at one of the windows. And I tried to think, as all decent people are thinking, what one can really do. And all the time that oppressive wall went up in front of me and took hold upon the heavens like a house of the gods. It is remarkable that in so many great wars it has been the defeated who have won. The people who were left worse at the end of the war were generally the people who were left best at the end of the whole business. For instance, the Crusades ended in the defeat of the Christians, but they did not end in the decline of the Christians. They ended in the decline of the Saracens. That huge prophetic wave of Muslim power which had hung in the very heavens above the towns of Christendom, that wave was broken and never came on again. The Crusaders had saved Paris in the act of losing Jerusalem. The same applies to that epic of Republican war in the 18th century, to which we liberals owe our political creed. The French Revolution ended in defeat. The kings came back across a carpet of dead at Waterloo. The Revolution had lost its battle, but it had gained its first object. It had cut a chasm. The world has never been the same since. No one after that has ever been able to treat the poor merely as pavement. These jewels of God, the poor, are still treated as mere stones of the street, but as stones that may sometimes fly. If it please God, you and I may see some of the flying stones again before we see death. But here I only remark the interesting fact that the conquered almost always conquer. Sparta killed Athens with a final blow, and she was born again. Sparta went away victorious and died slowly of her own wounds. The Boers lost the South African War and gained South Africa. And this is really all that we can do when we fight something really stronger than ourselves. We can deal it its death wound one moment. It deals us death in the end. It is something if we can shock and jar the unthinking impetus and enormous innocence of evil, just as a pebble on a railway can stagger the Scotch Express. It is enough for the great martyrs and criminals of the French Revolution that they have surprised for all time the secret weaknesses of the strong. They have awakened and set leaping and quivering in his crib for ever, the coward in the hearts of kings. When Jack the Giant Killer really first saw the Giant, his experience was not such as has been generally supposed. To be fair to hear it, I will tell you the real story of Jack the Giant Killer. To begin with, the most awful thing which Jack first felt about the Giant was that he was not a Giant. He came striding across an interminable wood plane, and against its remote horizon the Giant was quite a small figure, like a figure in a picture. He seemed merely a man walking across the grass. Then Jack was shocked by remembering that the grass, the man was treading down, was one of the tallest forests upon the plane. The man came nearer and nearer growing bigger and bigger, and at the instant when he passed the possible stature of humanity, Jack almost screamed. The rest was an intolerable apocalypse. The Giant had the one frightful quality of a miracle. The more he became incredible, the more he became solid. The less one could believe in him, the more plainly one could see him. It was unbearable that so much of the sky should be occupied by one human face. His eyes, which had stood out like bow-windows, became bigger, and yet there was no metaphor they could contain their bigness. Yet still they were human eyes. Jack's intellect was utterly gone under that huge hypnotism of the face that filled the sky. His last hope was submerged, his five wits all still with terror. But there stood up in him still a kind of cold chivalry, a dignity of dead honor that would not forget the small and futile sword in his hand. He rushed at one of the colossal feet of this human tower, and when he came quite close to it the ankle bone arched over him like a cave. Then he planted the point of his sword against the foot and lent on it with all his weight, till it went in up to the hilt, and broke the hilt, and then snapped just under it. And it was plain that the giant felt a sort of prick, for he snatched up his great foot into his great hand for an instant, and then putting it down again he bent over and stared at the ground, until he had seen his enemy. Then he picked up Jack between a finger and thumb, and threw him away. And as Jack went through the air he felt as if he were flying from system to system through the universe of stars. But as the giant had thrown him away carelessly he did not strike a stone, but struck soft mire by the side of a distant river. There he lay insensible for several hours. But when he awoke again his horrible conqueror was still in sight. He was striding away across the void and wounded plain towards where it ended in the sea, and by this time he was only much higher than any of the hills. He grew less and less indeed, but only as a really high mountain grows and lasts less and less when we leave it in a railway train. Half an hour afterwards he was a bright blue color as are the distant hills, but his outline was still human and still gigantic. Then the big blue figure seemed to come to the brink of the big blue sea, and even as it did so it altered its attitude. Jack, stunned and bleeding, lifted himself laboriously upon one elbow to stare. The giant, once more caught hold of his ankle, wavered twice as in a wind, and then went over into the great sea, which washes the whole world, and which, alone of all things, God has made, was big enough to drown him. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton. People accuse journalism of being too personal, but to me it has always seemed far too impersonal. It is charged with tearing away the veils from private life, but it seems to me to be always dropping diaphanous but blinding veils between men and men. The yellow press is abused for exposing facts which are private. I wish the yellow press did anything so valuable. It is exactly the decisive individual touches that it never gives, and a proof of this is that after one has met a man a million times in the newspapers, it always seems a complete shock and a reversal to meet him in real life. The yellow pressman seems to have no power of catching the first fresh fact about a man that dominates all after impressions. For instance, before I met Bernard Shaw, I heard that he spoke with a reckless desire for paradox or a sneering hatred of sentiment. But I never knew until he opened his mouth that he spoke with an Irish accent, which is more important than all the other criticisms put together. Journalism is not personal enough. So far from digging out private personalities, it cannot even report the obvious personalities on the surface. Now there is one vivid and even bodily impression of this kind which we have all felt when we met great poets or politicians, but which never finds its way into the newspapers. I mean the impression that they are much older than we thought they were. We connect great men with their great triumphs, which generally happened some years ago, and many recruits enthusiastic for the thin Napoleon of Marengo must have found themselves in the presence of the fat Napoleon of Leipzig. I remember reading in his paper account of how a certain rising politician confronted the house of lords with the enthusiasm almost of boyhood. It described how his brave young voice rang in the rafters. I also remember that I met him some days after and he was considerably older than my own father. I mention this truth for only one purpose. All this generalization leads up to only one fact. The fact that I once met a great man who was younger than I expected. I had come over the wooded wall from the villages about Epsom and down a stumbling path between trees toward the valley in which dorking lies. A warm sunlight was working its way through the leafage, a sunlight which, though of saintless gold, had taken on the quality of evening. It was such a sunlight as reminds a man that the sun begins to set an instant afternoon. It seems to lessen as the wood strengthened and the road sank. I had a sensation peculiar to such entangled descents. I felt that the treetops that closed above me were the fixed and real things, certain as the level of the sea, but that the solid earth was every instant failing under my feet. In a little while that splendid sunlight showed only in splashes, like flaming stars and suns in the dome of the green sky. Around me in that emerald twilight were trunks of trees of every plain or twisted type. It was like a chapel supported on columns of every earthly and unearthly style of architecture. Without intention my mind grew full of fancies on the nature of the forest, on the whole philosophy of mystery and force. For the meaning of woods is the combination of energy with complexity. A forest is not in the least rude or barbarous. It is only dense with delicacy. Unique shapes that an artist would copy or a philosopher watched for years if he found them in an open plain are here mingled and confounded, but it is not a darkness or deformity. It is a darkness of life, a darkness of perfection. And I began to think how much of the highest human obscurity is like this and how much men have misunderstood it. People will tell you, for instance, that theology became elaborate because it was dead. Believe me, if it had been dead it would never have become elaborate. It is only the live tree that grows too many branches. These trees then fell away from each other and I came out into deep grass and a road. I remember being surprised that the evening was so far advanced. I had a fancy that this valley had a sunset all to itself. I went along that road according to directions that had been given me and passed the gateway in a slight pailing beyond which the wood changed only faintly to a garden. It was as if the curious courtesy and fineness of that character I was to meet went out from him upon the valley, for I felt on all these things the finger of that quality which the old English call fairy. It is the quality which those can never understand who think of the past as merely brutal. It is an ancient elegance such as there is in trees. I went through the garden and saw an old man sitting by a table looking smallish in his big chair. He was already an invalid and his hair and beard were both white, not like snow, as cold and heavy, but like something feathery or even fierce. Rather they were white like the white thistle down. I came up quite close to him. He looked at me as he put out his frail hand and I saw of a sudden that his eyes were startlingly young. He was the one great man of the old world whom I have met who was not a mere statue over his own grave. He was deaf and he talked like a torrent. He did not talk about the books he had written. He was far too much alive for that. He talked about the books he had not written. He unrolled a purple bundle of romances which he had never had time to sell. He asked me to write one of the stories for him, as he would have asked the milkman if he had been talking to the milkman. It was a splendid and frantic story, the sort of astronomical farce. It was all about a man who was rushing up to the royal society with the only possible way of avoiding an earth-destroying comet and it showed how even on this huge errand the man was tripped up at every other minute by his own weakness and vanities, how he lost the train by trifling or was putting gold for brawling. That is only one of them. There were ten or twenty more. Another I dimly remember was a version of the fall of Parnell, that a quite honest man might be secret from a pure love of secrecy, of solitary self-control. I went out of that garden with a blurred sensation of the million possibilities of creative literature. The feeling increased as my way fell back into the wood, for a wood is a palace with a million covertors that cross each other everywhere. I really had the feeling that I had seen the creative quality, which is supernatural. I had seen what Virgil calls the old man of the forest. I had seen an elf. The trees thronged behind my path. I have never seen him again, and now I shall not see him, because he died last Tuesday. Chapter 22 The Orthodox Barber Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them, and so perhaps it would if they had it. There is a very real thing which may be called the love of humanity. In our time, it exists almost entirely among what are called uneducated people, and it does not exist at all among the people who talk about it. A positive pleasure in being in the presence of any other human being is chiefly remarkable, for instance in the masses on bank holiday. That is why they are so much nearer heaven, despite appearances than any other part of our population. I remember seeing a crowd of factory girls getting onto an empty train at a wayside country station. There were about twenty of them. They all got onto one carriage, and they left all the rest of the train entirely empty. That is the real love of humanity. That is a definite pleasure in the immediate proximity of one's own kind. Only this course rank real love of men seems to be entirely lacking in those who propose the love of humanity as the substitute for all other love, honorable, rationalistic idealists. I can well remember the explosion of human joy which marked the sudden starting of that train. All the factory girls who could not find seats, and they must have been the majority, relieving their feelings by jumping up and down. Now I have never seen any rationalistic idealists do this. I have never seen twenty modern philosophers crowd into one third-class carriage for the mere pleasure of being together. I have never seen twenty Mr. McCabe's all in one carriage, and all jumping up and down. Some people express a fear that vulgar trippers will overrun all beautiful places, such as Hampstead or Burnham Beaches. But their fear is unreasonable, because trippers always prefer to trip together. They pack as close as they can. They have a suffocating passion of philanthropy. But among the minor and milder aspects of the same principle, I have no hesitation in placing the problem of the colloquial barber. Before any modern man talks with authority about loving men, I insist, I insist with violence, that he shall always be very much pleased when his barber tries to talk to him. His barber is humanity. Let him love that. If he is not pleased at this, I will not accept any substitute in the way of interest in the Congo or the future of Japan. If a man cannot love his barber whom he has seen, how shall he love the Japanese whom he has not seen? It is urge against the barber that he begins by talking about the weather. I do all dukes and diplomatists. Only that they talk about it with ostentatious fatigue and indifference, whereas the barber talks about it with an astonishing, incredible freshness of interest. It is objected to him that he tells people that they are going bald. That is to say, his very virtues are cast up against him. He is blamed because being a specialist, he is a sincere specialist, and because being a tradesman, he is not entirely a slave. But the only proof of such things is by example. Therefore, I will prove the excellence of the conversation of barbers by a specific case, lest anyone should accuse me of attempting to prove it by fictitious means. I beg to say quite seriously that though I forget the exact language employed, the following conversation between me and a human I trust living barber really took place a few days ago. I had been invited to some at home to meet the colonial premiers, and lest I should be mistaken for some partly reformed bush ranger out of the interior of Australia, I went into a shop in the Strand to get shaved. While I was undergoing the torture, the man said to me, There seems to be a lot in the papers about this new shaving, sir. Can shave yourself with anything, with a stick, or a stone, or a pole, or a poker. Here I began for the first time to detect a sarcastic intonation, or a shovel, or a— Here he hesitated for a word, and I, although I knew nothing about the matter, helped him out with the suggestion in the same rhetorical vein, or a button-hook, I said, or a blunder-bus, or a battering-ram, or a piston-rod. He resumed, refreshed with his assistance, or a curtain-rod, or a candlestick, or a cow-catcher, I suggested eagerly, and we continued in this ecstatic duet for some time. Then I asked him what it was all about, and he told me. He explained the thing eloquently and at length. The funny part of it is, he said, that the thing isn't new at all. It's been talked about ever since I was a boy, and long before. There is always a notion that the razor might be done without, somehow. But none of those schemes ever came to anything, and I don't believe myself that this will. Why, as to that, I said, rising slowly from the chair, and trying to put my coat inside out. I don't know how it may be in the case of you and your new shaving. Shaving, with all respect to you, is a trivial and materialistic thing, and in such things startling inventions are sometimes made, but what you say reminds me in some dark and dreamy fashion of something else. I recall it especially when you tell me with such evident experience and sincerity that the new shaving is not really new. My friend, the human race, is always trying this dodge of making everything entirely easy. But the difficulty which it shifts off one thing, it shifts on to another. If one man has not the toil of preparing a man's chin, I suppose that some other man has the toil of preparing something very curious to put on a man's chin. It would be nice if we could be shaved without troubling anybody. It would be nicer still if we could go unshaved without annoying anybody. But, oh wise friend, Chief Barber of the Strand, brother, nor you nor I have made the world. Whoever made it, who is wiser, and we hope better than we made it, under strange limitations, and with painful conditions of pleasure. In the first and darkest of its books it is fiercely written that a man shall not eat his cake at heaven. And though all men talked until the stars were old, it would still be true that a man who has lost his razor could not shave with it. But every now and then men jump up with the new something or other and say that everything can be had without sacrifice. That is good, if you are only enlightened, and that there is no real difference between being shaved and not being shaved. The difference, they say, is only a difference of degree. Everything is evolutionary and relative. Shavedness is imminent in man. Every ten-penny nail is a potential razor. The superstitious people of the past, they say, believe that a lot of black bristles standing out at right angles to one's face was a positive affair. But the higher criticism teaches us better. Bristles are merely negative. They are a shadow where shaving should be. Well, it all goes on, and I suppose it all means something. But a baby is the kingdom of God, and if you try to kiss a baby he will know whether you are shaved or not. Perhaps I am mixing up being shaved and being saved. My democratic sympathies have always led me to drop my H's. In another moment I may suggest that goats represent the lost because goats have long beards. This is growing altogether too allegorical. Nevertheless, I added, as I paid the bill, I have really been profoundly interested in what you told me about the new shaving. Have you ever heard of a thing called the new theology? He smiled and said that he had not. The end of Chapter 22 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton Chapter 23 The Toy Theatre There is only one reason why all grown-up people do not play with toys. And it is a fair reason. The reason is that playing with toys takes so very much more time and trouble than anything else. Playing as children meant playing is the most serious thing in the world. And as soon as we have small duties or small sorrows, we have to abandon to some extent so enormous and ambitious a plan of life. We have enough strength for politics and commerce and art and philosophy. We have not enough strength for play. This is the truth which everyone will recognize who as a child has ever played with anything at all. Anyone who has played with bricks, anyone who has played with dolls, anyone who has played with tin soldiers. My journalistic work, which earns money, is not pursued with such awful persistency as that work which earns nothing. Take the case of bricks. If you publish a book tomorrow in twelve volumes, it would be just like you. On the theory and practice of European architecture, your work may be laborious, but it is fundamentally frivolous. It is not serious as the work of a child piling one brick on another is serious. For the simple reason that if your book is a bad book, no one will ever be able, ultimately and entirely, to prove to you that it is a bad book. Whereas if the balance of bricks is a bad balance of bricks, it will simply tumble down. And if I know anything of children, he will set to work solemnly and sadly to build it up again. Whereas, if I know anything of authors, nothing could induce you to write your book again, or even to think of it again if you could help it. Take the case of dolls. It is much easier to care for an educational cause than to care for a doll. It is as easy to write an article on education as to write an article on toffee or tram cars or anything else. But it is almost as difficult to look after a doll as to look after a child. The little girls that I meet in the streets of Battersea worship their dolls in a way that reminds one not so much of play as idolatry. In some cases, the love and care of the artistic symbol has actually become more important than the human reality which it was, I suppose, originally meant to symbolize. I remember a Battersea little girl who wheeled her large baby sister stuffed into a doll's perambulator. When questioned on this course of conduct, she replied, I haven't got a dolly, and baby is pretending to be my dolly. Nature was indeed imitating art. First, a doll had been a substitute for a child. Afterwards, a child was a mere substitute for a doll. But that opens other matters. The point is here that such devotion takes up most of the brain and most of the life, much as if it were really the thing which it is supposed to symbolize. The point is that the man writing on motherhood is merely an educationalist. The child playing with a doll is a mother. Take the case of soldiers. A man writing an article on military strategy is simply a man writing an article, a horrid sight. But a boy making a campaign with tin soldiers is like a general making a campaign with live soldiers. He must, to the limit of his juvenile powers, think about the thing whereas the war correspondent need not think at all. I remember a war correspondent who remarked after the capture of Methune, this renewed activity on the part of Delary is probably due to his being short of stores. The same military critic had mentioned a few paragraphs before that Delary was being hard pressed by a column which was pursuing him under the command of Methune. Methune chased Delary and Delary's activity was due to his being short of stores. Otherwise he would have stood quite still while he was chased. I run after Jones with a hatchet and if he turns around and tries to get rid of me the only possible explanation is that he has a very small balance at his bankers. I cannot believe that any boy playing at soldiers would be as idiotic as this. But then anyone playing at anything has to be serious whereas I have it only two good reason to know if you are writing an article you can say anything that comes into your head. Broadly then, what keeps adults from joining in children's games is generally speaking not that they have no pleasure in them it is simply that they have no leisure for them. It is that they cannot afford the expenditure of toil and time and consideration for so grand and grave a scheme. I have been myself attempting for some time to complete a play in a small toy theater the sort of toy theater that used to be called Penny Plain with two pence colored only that I drew and colored the figures and scenes myself. Hence I was free from the degrading obligation of having to pay either a penny or two pence. I only had to pay a shilling a sheet for a good cardboard and a shilling a box for bad watercolors. The kind of miniature stage I mean is probably familiar to everyone it is never more than a development of the stage which Skelt made and Stevenson celebrated. But though I have worked much harder at the toy theater than I ever worked at any tale or article I cannot finish it. The work seems too heavy for me. I have to break off and retake myself to lighter employments such as the biographies of great men. The play of St. George and the Dragon over which I have burnt the midnight oil you must color the thing by lamp light because that is how it will be seen. It still lacks most conspicuously alas two wings of the Sultans palace and also some comprehensible and workable way of getting up the curtain. All this gives me a feeling touching the real meaning of immortality. In this world we cannot have pure pleasure. This is partly because pure pleasure would be dangerous to us and to our neighbors but it is partly because pure pleasure is a great deal too much trouble. If I am ever in any other and better world I hope that I shall have enough time to play with nothing but toy theaters and I hope that I shall have enough divine and superhuman energy to act at least one play in them without a hitch. Meanwhile the philosophy of toy theaters is worth any one's consideration. All the essential morals which modern men need to learn could be deduced from this toy. Artistically considered it reminds us of the main principle of art the principle which is in most danger of being forgotten in our time. I mean the fact that art consists of limitation the fact that art is limitation. Art does not consist in expanding things art consists of cutting things down as I cut down with a pair of scissors my very ugly figures of St. George and the Dragon. Plato who liked definite ideas would like my cardboard dragon. For though the creature has few other artistic merits he is at least dragonish. The modern philosopher who likes infinity is quite welcome to a sheet of the plain cardboard. The most artistic thing about the theatrical art is the fact that the spectator looks at the whole thing through a window. This is true even of theaters inferior to my own. Even at the court theater or his majesties you are looking through a window an unusually large window but the advantage of the small theater exactly is that you are looking through a small window. Has not everyone noticed how sweet and startling any landscape looks when seen through an arch? This strong square shape this shutting off of everything else is not only an assistance to beauty it is the essential of beauty. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame. This especially is true of the toy theater that by reducing the scale of events it can introduce much larger events. Because it is small it could easily represent the earthquake in Jamaica because it is small it could easily represent the day of judgment. Exactly in so far as it is limited so far it could play easily with falling cities or with falling stars. Meanwhile the big theaters are obliged to be economical because they are big. When we have understood this fact we shall have understood something of the reason why the world has always been first inspired by small nationalities. The vast Greek philosophy could fit easier into the small city of Athens than into the immense empire of Persia. In the narrow streets of Florence Dante felt that there was room for purgatory and heaven and hell. He would have been stifled by the British Empire. Great empires are necessarily prosaic for it is beyond human power to hack the great poem upon so great a scale. You can only represent very big ideas in very small spaces. My toy theater is as philosophical as the drama of Athens. End of Chapter 23 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton Chapter 24 A Tragedy of Two Pence My relations with the readers of this page have been long and pleasant. But perhaps for that very reason I feel that the time has come when I ought to confess the one great crime of my life. It happened a long time ago, but it is not uncommon for a belated burst of remorse to reveal such dark episodes long after they have occurred. It has nothing to do with the orgies of the anti-Puritan League. That body is so offensively respectable that a newspaper, in describing it the other day, referred to my friend Mr. Edgar Jepsen as Cannon Edgar Jepsen, and it is believed that similar titles are intended for all of us. No, it is not by the conduct of Archbishop Crane of Dean Chesterton of the Reverend James Douglas of Monsignor Bland and even of that fine and virile Old Ecclesiastic Cardinal Nesbitt that I wish or rather am driven by my conscience to make this declaration. The crime was committed in solitude and without accomplices. Alone I did it. Let me, with the characteristic thirst of penitence, to get the worst of the confession over. Stated first in all its most dreadful and indefensible form. There is, at the present moment, in a town in Germany unless he has died of rage on discovering his wrong, a restaurant keeper to whom I still owe two pence. I last left his open-air restaurant knowing that I owed him two pence. I carried it away under his nose despite the fact that the nose was decidedly Jewish one. I have never paid him and it is highly improbable that I ever shall. How did this villainy come to occur in a life which has been, generally speaking, deficient in the dexterity necessary for fraud? The story is as follows and it has a moral, though there may not be room for that. It is a fair general rule for those travelling on the continent that the easiest way of talking in a foreign language is to talk philosophy. The most difficult kind of talking is to talk about common necessities. The reason is obvious. The names of common necessities vary completely with each nation and are generally somewhat odd and quaint. How, for instance, could a Frenchman suppose that a coal box would be called a scuttle? If he has ever seen the word scuttle, it has been in the Jingo press where the policy of scuttle is used whenever we give up something to a small power like liberals instead of giving up everything to a great power like imperialists. What Englishman in Germany would be poet enough to guess that the Germans call a glove a hand shoe. Nations name their necessities by nickname, so to speak. They call their tubs and stools by quaint, elvish and almost affectionate names as if they were their own children. But anyone can argue about abstract things in a foreign language who has ever got as far as exercise for in a primer. For as soon as he can put a sentence together at all, he finds that the words used in abstract or philosophical discussions are almost the same in all nations. They are the same for the simple reason that they all come from the things that were the roots of our common civilization, from Christianity, from the Roman Empire, from the medieval church, or the French Revolution, nation, citizen, religion, philosophy, authority, the Republic. Words like these are nearly the same in all countries in which we travel. Restrain, therefore, your exuberant admiration for the young man who can argue with six French atheists when he first lands at Dieppe. Even I can do that. But very likely the same young man does not know the French for a shoehorn. But to this generalization there are three great exceptions. One, in the case of countries that are not European at all and have never had our civic conceptions or old Latin scholarship. I do not pretend that the Patagonian phrase for citizenship at once leaps to the mind, or that a Diyak's word for the Republic has been familiar to me from the nursery. Two, in the case of Germany, where although the principle does apply to many words, such as nation and philosophy, it does not apply so generally, because Germany has had a special and deliberate policy of encouraging the purely German part of its language. Three, in the case where one does not know any of the language at all, as is generally the case with me. Such at least was my situation on the dark day on which I committed my crime. Two of the exceptional conditions which I have mentioned were combined. I was walking about a German town and I knew no German. I knew, however, two or three of those great and solemn words which hold our European civilization together, one of which is cigar. As it was a hot and dreamy day, I sat down at a table in a sort of beer-garden and ordered a cigar and a pot of lager. I drank the lager and paid for it. I smoked the cigar, forgot to pay for it, and walked away, gazing rapturously at the royal outline of the Taunus Mountains. After about ten minutes, I suddenly remembered that I had not paid for the cigar. I went back to the place of refreshment and put down the money. But the proprietor also had forgotten the cigar, and he merely said guttural things in a tone of query, asking me, I suppose, what I wanted. I said, cigar, and he gave me a cigar. I endeavored while putting down the money to wave away the cigar with gestures of refusal. He thought that my rejection was of the nature of a condemnation of that particular cigar and brought me another. I whirled my arms like a windmill, seeking to convey by the sweeping universality of my gesture that my rejection was a rejection of cigars in general, not of that particular article. He mistook this for the ordinary impatience of common men and rushed forward, his hands filled with miscellaneous cigars, pressing them upon me. In desperation I tried other kinds of pantomime. But the more cigars I refused, the more and more rare and precious cigars were brought out of the deeps and recesses of the establishment. I tried in vain to think of a way of conveying to him the fact that I had already had the cigar. I imitated the action of a citizen smoking, knocking off and throwing away a cigar, then the watchful proprietor only thought I was rehearsing, as in an ecstasy of anticipation, the joys of the cigar he was going to give me. At last I retired baffled. He would not take the money and leave the cigars alone, so that this restaurant keeper, in whose face a love of money shown like the sun at noon day, flatly and firmly refused to receive the two pence that I certainly owed him. And I took that two pence of his away with me and rioted on it for months. I hope that on the last day the angels will break the truth very gently to that unhappy man. This is the true and exact account of the great cigar fraud, and the moral of it is this. That civilization is founded upon abstractions. The idea of debt is one which cannot be conveyed by physical motions at all, because it is an abstract idea. And civilization obviously would be nothing without debt. So when hard-headed fellows who study scientific sociology, which does not exist, come and tell you that civilization is material or indifferent to the abstract, just ask yourselves how many of the things that make up our society, the law, or the stocks and shares, or the national debt, you would be able to convey with your face your ten fingers by grinning and gesticulating to a German innkeeper. End of Chapter 24 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Tremendous Trifles by G. K. Chesterton Chapter 25 A Cab Ride Across Country Sown somewhere far off in the shallow dales of Hertfordshire, there lies a village of great beauty, and I doubt not of admirable virtue, but of eccentric and unbalanced literary taste which asks the present writer to come down to it on Sunday afternoon and give an address. Now it was very difficult to get down to it at all on Sunday afternoon, owing to the indescribable state into which our national laws and customs are in connection with the seventh day. It is not Puritanism, it is simply anarchy. I should have some sympathy with the Jewish Sabbath if it were a Jewish Sabbath, and that for three reasons. First, that religion is an intrinsically sympathetic thing. Second, that I cannot conceive any religion worth calling a religion without a fixed and material observance. And third, that the particular observance of sitting still and doing no work is one that suits my temperament down to the ground. But the absurdity of the modern English convention is that it does not let a man sit still. It only perpetually trips him up when it has forced him to walk about. Our Sabaterianism does not forbid us to ask a man in Battersea to come and talk on Hertfordshire. It only prevents his getting there. I can understand that a deity might be worshipped with joys, with flowers, and fireworks in the old European style. I can understand that a deity might be worshipped with sorrows. But I cannot imagine any deity being worshipped with inconveniences. Let the good Muslim go to Mecca, or let him abide in his tent according to his feelings for religious symbols. But surely Allah cannot see anything particularly dignified in his servant who is misled by the timetable, finding that the old Mecca Express is not running, missing his connection at Baghdad, or having to wait three hours in a small side station outside Damascus. So it was with me on this occasion. I found there was no telegraph service at all to this place. I found there was only one weak thread of train service. Now if this had been the authority of real English religion, I should have submitted to it at once. If I believed that the telegraph clerk could not send the telegram because he was at that moment rigid in an ecstasy of prayer, I should think all telegrams are important in comparison. If I could believe that railway porters, when relieved from their duties, rushed with passion to the nearest place of worship, I would say that all lectures and everything else ought to give way to such a consideration. I should not complain if the national faith forbade me to make any appointments of labor or self-expression on the Sabbath. But as it is, it only tells me that I may very probably keep the Sabbath by not keeping the appointment. But I must resume the real details of my tale. I found that there was only one train in the whole of that Sunday to even get within several hours or several miles of the time or place. I therefore went to the telephone, which is one of my favorite toys, and down which I have shouted many valuable but prematurely arrested monologues upon art and morals. I remember a mild shock of surprise when I discovered that one could use the telephone on Sunday. I did not expect it to be cut off, but I expected it to buzz more than on ordinary days, through the advancement of our national religion. Through this instrument, in fewer words than usual and with a comparative economy of epigram, I ordered a taxi cab to take me to the railway station. I have not a word to say in general, either against telephones or taxi cabs. They seemed to me to be the purest and most poetic of the creations of modern scientific civilization. Unfortunately, when the taxi cab started, it did exactly what modern scientific civilization has done. It broke down. The result of this was that when I arrived at King's Cross, my only train was gone. There was a Sabbath calm in the station, a calm in the eyes of the porters, and in my breast, if calm at all, if any calm, a calm despair. There was not, however, very much calm of any sort in my breast on first making the discovery, and it was turned to blinding horror when I learned that I could not even send a telegram to the organizers of the meeting. To leave my entertainers in the lurch was sufficiently exasperating. To leave them without any intimation was simply low. I reasoned with the official. I said, Do you really mean to say that if my brother were dying and my mother in this place, I could not communicate with her? He was a man of literal and laborious mind. He asked me if my brother was dying. I answered that he was in excellent and even offensive health, but that I was inquiring upon a question of principle. What would happen if England were invaded, or if I alone knew how to turn aside a comet or an earthquake? He waved away these hypotheses in the most irresponsible spirit, but he was quite certain that he could not reach this particular village. Then something exploded in me. That element of the outrageous which is the mother of all adventures sprang up, ungovernable, and I decided that I would not be a cad merely because some of my remote ancestors had been Calvinists. I would keep my appointment if I lost all my money and all my wits. I went out into the quiet London street, where my quiet London cab was still waiting for its fare in the cold misty morning. I placed myself comfortably in the London cab and told the London driver to drive me to the other end of Herfordshire, and he did. I shall not forget that drive. It was doubtful weather even in a motor cab. The thing was possible with any consideration for the driver, not to speak of some like consideration for the people on the road. I urged the driver to eat and drink what he said, with I know not what pride of profession or delicate sense of adventure, that he would rather do it than we arrived, if we ever did. I was by no means so delicate. I bought a varied selection of pork pies at a little shop that was open. Why was that shop open? It's all a mystery. And ate them as we went along. The beginning was somber and irritating. I was annoyed and not with people but with things, like a baby, with a motor for breaking down, with the Sunday for being Sunday, and the sight of the northern slums expanded and ennobled, but did not decrease my gloom. Whitechapel has an oriental gaudiness in its squalor. Battersea and Camberwell have an indescribable bustle of democracy. But the poor parts of northern London, well, perhaps I saw them wrongly under that ashen morning and on that foolish errand. It was one of those days which more than once this year broke the retreat of winter, a winter day that began too late to be spring. We were already clear of the obstructing crowds and quickening our pace through the borderland of market gardens and isolated public houses when the grey-should golden patches and a good light began to glitter on everything. The cab went quicker and quicker, the open land world wider and wider, but I did not lose my sense of being battled with and thwarted that I had felt in the thronged slums. Rather the feeling increased because of the great difficulty of space and time. The faster went the car, the fiercer and thicker I felt the fight. The whole landscape seemed charging at me and just missing me. The tall shining grass went by like showers of arrows. The very trees seemed like lances hurled at my heart and shaving it by a hair's breath. Across some vast smooth valley I saw a beech tree by the white road stand up little and defiant. It grew bigger and bigger with blinding rapidity. It charged me like a tilting night, seemed to hack at my head and pass by. Sometimes when we went round a curve of road the effect was yet more awful. It seemed as if some tree or windmill swung round to smite like a boomerang. The sun by this time was a blazing fact and I saw that all nature is chivalrous and militant. We do wrong to seek peace in nature. We should rather seek the nobler sort of war and see all the trees as green banners. I gave my address, arriving just when everybody was deciding to leave. When my cab came reeling into the marketplace they decided with evident disappointment to remain. Over the lecture I draw a veil. When I came back home I was called to the telephone and a meek voice expressed regret for the failure of the motor cab and even said something about any reasonable payment. Whom can I pay for my own superb experience? What is the usual charge for seeing the cloud shattered by the sun? What is the market price of a tree blue on the skyline and then blinding white in the sun? Mention your price for that windmill that stood behind the hollyhocks in the garden. Let me pay you for it. Here it was, I think, that we were cut off and...